Adrian Lamo Explains His Decision To Expose Bradley Manning 341
ilikenwf writes "Whether you agree with his rationale for doing so or not, Adrian Lamo has come forward to discuss his reasoning for exposing Bradley Manning. Manning, now in federal custody, leaked thousands of U.S. intelligence files and documents. Lamo's side of the story shows that he was concerned for Manning's mental health and stability, and for the lives Manning was risking by releasing classified material — Afghan informants, for instance. Either way, this goes to show that if you're going to release stolen/hacked documents, it's best you do it anonymously and don't brag about it."
not really. (Score:4, Informative)
This submission text is tainted by the poster's personal opinions - opinions which are, to say the very least, not unanimously shared. If you read the article it is striking how Lamo seems completely bereft of any sympathy for Manning, how he might have possibly fooled him into confessing by promising to treat it in confidence - and how he likes to hide behind complex (made up?) words and phrases instead of answering the interviewer's questions directly. One for the psychologists...
Pentagon: the leak "did not disclose...sources..." (Score:5, Informative)
Lamo's concerns regarding disclosure of Afgahan informants from Wikileaks are thus far unfounded, and his claim that "WikiLeaks has a history of hand-waving away the consequences of their disclosures" doesn't seem to jive with the facts in this case. Below is a quote from the relevant section of the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org].
Informants named [wikipedia.org]
Some, including Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai, raised concerns that the detailed logs had exposed the names of Afghan informants, thus endangering their lives. Partially in response to this criticism, Wikileaks announced that it has sought the help of the Pentagon in reviewing a further 15,000 documents before releasing them. The Pentagon said it had not been contacted by Wikileaks. However, blogger Glenn Greenwald presented evidence that the Pentagon had, in fact, been contacted, and that it had refused the request.
On 11 August, a spokesman for the Pentagon told the Washington Post that "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents", although the spokesman asserted "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field." On 17 August, the Associated Press reported that "so far there is no evidence that any Afghans named in the leaked documents as defectors or informants from the Taliban insurgency have been harmed in retaliation."
In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak." Both Wikileaks and Greenwald pointed to this report as clear evidence that the danger caused by the leak had been vastly overstated.
Yes, I know I'm threadjacking an FP, but the issue that is often made of this so far non-issue I find annoying, particularly because it tends to overshadow the facts that were revealed.
Re:Thanks for the concern (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1358063/I-was-one-of-the-Talibans-torturers-I-crucified-people.html [telegraph.co.uk]
"Basically any form of pleasure was outlawed," Mr Hassani said, "and if we found people doing any of these things we would beat them with staves soaked in water - like a knife cutting through meat - until the room ran with their blood or their spines snapped. Then we would leave them with no food or water in rooms filled with insects until they died.
"We always tried to do different things: we would put some of them standing on their heads to sleep, hang others upside down with their legs tied together. We would stretch the arms out of others and nail them to posts like crucifixions.
Re:Thanks for the concern (Score:5, Informative)